Archive for shirleymckie.myfastforum.org To allow readers to post comments on current issues related to the Shirley McKie case
 


       shirleymckie.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Test Forum 1
david

BBC - WHY WE CAN REPORT JUROR'S VIEWS

Colin Norris: Juror's doubt over serial killer verdict


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-31021447
Iain McKie

For previous forum discussion see:

http://shirleymckie.myfastforum.org/ftopic1220-0-0-asc-.php

The Parliament link doesn't work. Instead use:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk...ss/28862.aspx?r=7675&mode=pdf
Big Wullie

Quote:
Iain McKie: The jury issue is perhaps the most important issue that we face. I come at the issue from the perspective of someone who wants to facilitate openness, not legislate against it. I had occasion recently to look at expert evidence, and it is clear to me that judges, the prosecution, the defence and juries do not have a clue about what many experts are talking about in court. I suspect that we are quickly reaching that stage in many areas, as scientific, philosophical and psychological knowledge increases.


I agree entirely particularly when I read the decision not to allow Tim Valentine's evidence to be heard at Wullie Gage's appeal.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011HCJAC40.html
Big Wullie

Steven Raeburn
Quote:
There is one particular reason for that. I spoke to a colleague in criminal defence—we have learned counsel in attendance and, of course, Mr Anwar; they have far more direct experience than I do, so they may be able to speak on this point—who in 20 years of trial work had never been involved in a case in which anybody had been charged with perjury, although it was quite clear that through the course of proceedings perjury had been committed.
If there is more visibility, there is probably more chance that people’s evidence would speak closer to the facts and that others would ask, “Why was that person not charged with perjury? They were clearly lying.” If there are more eyes on the court, more visibility and more scrutiny, that can improve the administration of justice. My view is that that ought to be encouraged.


I thought witnesses in the Nat Fraser trial should have been charged with Perjury for departing form their signed statements.

I also thought a certain police officer should not have been allowed to give evidence after he admitted destroying his black book and diary before Nat Fraser even had his first appeal.

He should have been charged with destroying evidence in a capital case.

There was me thinking all evidence required to be retained in all capital cases.

There was other evidence that the police coerced witnesses to give false evidence with the promise of a visit with her Husband and these police will never be held accountable.

My big question is why would the police want witnesses to tell lies ?

I agree trials should be televised because then the public would really see what goes on and there would be a proper transcript which some people are denied.

Most concern relates to witnesses still to give evidence watching other witnesses prior to them give evidence.

The court already publishes opinions and parliament as was pointed out has their own TV Chanel, what is to stop the courts from doing the same as parliament and this would allow them to wait until after the trial before allowing the evidence to be shown.

If the press are allowed to film, they will always pick out the sensational parts to publish and 99 times out of 100 in my opinion they are always biased towards any accused.
david

The archaic contempt of court Act 1981 is an obstruction to justice.

How many times has the court of appeal and SCCRC concluded that fresh evidence would not have had an effect on a jury's verdict.

Jurors should be asked as its too easy to cover cases up by judges and board members surmising what jurors think.

I know of a case where the SCCRC concluded fresh evidence would not have had an affect on the jury's verdict yet a couple of jurors came forward stating the opposite. The legal team were not permitted to speak to the jurors due to contempt of Court Act.
Big Wullie

david wrote:
The archaic contempt of court Act 1981 is an obstruction to justice.

How many times has the court of appeal and SCCRC concluded that fresh evidence would not have had an effect on a jury's verdict.

Jurors should be asked as its too easy to cover cases up by judges and board members surmising what jurors think.

I know of a case where the SCCRC concluded fresh evidence would not have had an affect on the jury's verdict yet a couple of jurors came forward stating the opposite. The legal team were not permitted to speak to the jurors due to contempt of Court Act.


I heard about that case too and believe it was Rosemary Cameron the jurors contacted and despite her not being a Solicitor she still refused to speak to the jurors.

From the BBC article on Colin Norris I take it jurors can be spoken to but not asked what happened in the jury room.

They can be asked if their verdicts would have been different had they heard evidence not originally heard at trial.

       shirleymckie.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Test Forum 1
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Sincere thanks to all those who have supported Shirley and challenged miscarriages of justice on this forum.